Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[Valmark]

Okay. So we can't infer a meaning of "wield", correct?

We can- but going from that to meaning that wield is strictly melee is a leap in logic, like saying that [My cat is white] thus [cats are white]. The definition you used several times (to hold in [one or two] hand able to use (as a weapon)) makes no distintion between swords and bows for example. Nor the other one that has been adopted (to use effectively).

Besides, the first usage of a word doesn't preclude a wider meaning. I can say "This tastes sweet" and tell a person "You're sweet" and unless I have a rather worrying diet those will mean different things while still being a correct usage of a word.

[Mr Adventurer]

Okay. So we can't infer a meaning of "wield", correct?

That is a non-sequitur reply to my post, no.

The rules are clearly in my favor.

Please stop repeating yourself, it will lead to a better discussion.

[Zhorn]

Wielding darts is is ridiculous, right?

Only in so far as there are two consecutive is's in that sentence.
Wielding a dart to make an thrown range attack makes perfect sense.

Dirrecting to it's usage in the basic rules available free online
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/d...Rules_2018.pdf

Weapons
For each weapon your character wields, calculate the modifier you use when you attack with the weapon and the damage you deal when you hit.
When you make an attack with a weapon, you roll a d20 and add your proficiency bonus (but only if you are proficient with the weapon) and the appropriate ability modifier.

• For attacks with melee weapons, use your Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls. A weapon that has the finesse property, such as a rapier, can use your Dexterity modifier instead.
• For attacks with ranged weapons, use your Dexterity modifier for attack and damage rolls. A melee weapon that has the thrown property, such as a handaxe, can use your Strength modifier instead.

If you are making an attack with a weapon, you are wielding it. Simple.

Historically, the earliest uses of "wield " correspond to sword and shield warrfare. "Melee" was also a term from that time

And 'bun', where we get the word 'bunny', in old English originally meant squirrel.
So I guess that means we can never use 'bun' to mean a bread or cake in modern context any more?
Let's not be silly. Language shifts and changes, and 'wield' works perfectly well in modern context.

Not at all. “Wielding weapons” makes sense whether thrown or melee. To wield a weapon merely means you’re using it for its intended purpose. “Shuriken-wielding ninja” makes perfect sense as a description of a guy in black pajamas who runs through a room and peppers everybody and everything with throwing stars.

^ perfect example.

[ThorOdinson]

Only in so far as there are two consecutive is's in that sentence.
Wielding a dart to make an thrown range attack makes perfect sense.

Dirrecting to it's usage in the basic rules available free online
https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/d...Rules_2018.pdf

If you are making an attack with a weapon, you are wielding it. Simple.


And 'bun', where we get the word 'bunny', in old English originally meant squirrel.
So I guess that means we can never use 'bun' to mean a bread or cake in modern context any more?
Let's not be silly. Language shifts and changes, and 'wield' works perfectly well in modern context.


^ perfect example.

Cool. So no consensus on what "wield" means. : )

[Valmark]

Cool. So no consensus on what "wield" means. : )

I mean, that's half of the argument in the first place isn't it? You not agreeing with everybody (or nearly everybody) else's definition of wielding?

[Zhorn]

Here's a thingy

Returning Weapon
Prerequisites: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder's hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.

If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

[Valmark]

Here's a thingy


If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

It also confirms that 'wielding' isn't restricted to melee weapons which seemed up to debate.

[Aett_Thorn]

Here's a thingy


If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

Also means that under Thor’s interpretation this weapon would deal no damage, since it returns after the attack and not the damage. Would only do damage if the damage was a part of the attack, and not a discrete event.

[ThorOdinson]

Not at all. “Wielding weapons” makes sense whether thrown or melee. To wield a weapon merely means you’re using it for its intended purpose. “Shuriken-wielding ninja” makes perfect sense as a description of a guy in black pajamas who runs through a room and peppers everybody and everything with throwing stars.

Let me get this straight. Even in the case of darts where you throw them and they travel a distance and strike a target when the dart is not in your hand, the dart is still considered "wielded" by you?

[JNAProductions]

Here's a thingy

Returning Weapon
Prerequisites: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder's hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.

If it were as ThorOdinson is insisting and the weapon ceases to be wielded partway through the attack, then this wouldn't work since the attacker would no longer be considered the wielder once the weapon left their hand.

It seems this may have been missed. Under your ruling, TO, a Returning Weapon never deals damage when thrown, since it returns after the attack. With a discrete attack roll and damage roll, it returns before it deals damage.

Like I've said before-your reading of RAW may be technically accurate, but is not RAI, and as Segev pointed out, leads to some very odd interactions. Interactions that I, for one, and Segev, for two, find undesirable.

[ThorOdinson]

It seems this may have been missed. Under your ruling, TO, a Returning Weapon never deals damage when thrown, since it returns after the attack. With a discrete attack roll and damage roll, it returns before it deals damage.

Like I've said before-your reading of RAW may be technically accurate, but is not RAI, and as Segev pointed out, leads to some very odd interactions. Interactions that I, for one, and Segev, for two, find undesirable.

So are you considering thrown weapons "wielded" even when the weapon is not in your hand?

[JNAProductions]

So are you considering thrown weapons "wielded" even when the weapon is not in your hand?

Yeah. Up until the attack is over, it seems reasonable to treat the weapon as wielded, in whatever number of hands it started with.

It doesn't result in Returning thrown weapons either being unable to return or returning but dealing no damage.
It doesn't allow for Versatile/Dueling exploits.
It doesn't allow for a thrower to Counterspell a Shield, which is something that may or may not be desirable, but is also a very niche and minor thing.

And don't tell me "You're just houseruling, then!" because what I said above is RAI, Rules As Commonly Applied, Rules As Applied In Adventurer's League, and a perfectly valid reading of RAW.

[ThorOdinson]

Yeah. Up until the attack is over, it seems reasonable to treat the weapon as wielded, in whatever number of hands it started with.

It doesn't result in Returning thrown weapons either being unable to return or returning but dealing no damage.
It doesn't allow for Versatile/Dueling exploits.
It doesn't allow for a thrower to Counterspell a Shield, which is something that may or may not be desirable, but is also a very niche and minor thing.

And don't tell me "You're just houseruling, then!" because what I said above is RAI, Rules As Commonly Applied, Rules As Applied In Adventurer's League, and a perfectly valid reading of RAW.

So even when the thrown weapon strikes its target and delivers damage it is considered "wielded" even though it is no longer in your hand?

[JNAProductions]

So even when the thrown weapon strikes its target and delivers damage it is considered "wielded" even though it is no longer in your hand?

Yes. It's wielded until the attack (including damage) is over.

Now please, answer the various points that have been raised against your argument.

[Segev]

Let me get this straight. Even in the case of darts where you throw them and they travel a distance and strike a target when the dart is not in your hand, the dart is still considered "wielded" by you?

Yeah. Up until the attack is over, it seems reasonable to treat the weapon as wielded, in whatever number of hands it started with.

It doesn't result in Returning thrown weapons either being unable to return or returning but dealing no damage.
It doesn't allow for Versatile/Dueling exploits.
It doesn't allow for a thrower to Counterspell a Shield, which is something that may or may not be desirable, but is also a very niche and minor thing.

And don't tell me "You're just houseruling, then!" because what I said above is RAI, Rules As Commonly Applied, Rules As Applied In Adventurer's League, and a perfectly valid reading of RAW.

JNAProductions has adequately answered this, I think, but since the question was directed at me, I'll add my own superfluous words anyway:

The thrown weapon - whatever it is - is wielded until the attack fully resolves. Just as any weapon is wielded at least until the attack resolves.

The common-language description of somebody throwing a dagger at somebody else would not be: "The now-ex-knife-wielding rogue threw the knife at the fighter." It would be: "The knife-wielding rogue threw said knife at the fighter."

The big divide, here, lies along whether you consider an attack to be complete before the damage is dealt, I think.

[ThorOdinson]

Yes. It's wielded until the attack (including damage) is over.

Now please, answer the various points that have been raised against your argument.

So when you throw a weapon, it is considered "wielded" when you strike the target and deliver damage even though it is not in one hand or two hands?

[SpanielBear]

So when you throw a weapon, it is considered "wielded" when you strike the target and deliver damage even though it is not in one hand or two hands?

Taken from Zhorn’s previous post-

“Eberron Rising from the Last War p63
Returning Weapon
Prerequisites: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder's hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.“

So- yes. According to RAW.

[Mellack]

So when you throw a weapon, it is considered "wielded" when you strike the target and deliver damage even though it is not in one hand or two hands?

Not just wielded, but wielded by whatever number of hands it started in.

[Segev]

So when you throw a weapon, it is considered "wielded" when you strike the target and deliver damage even though it is not in one hand or two hands?

Taken from Zhorn’s previous post-

“Eberron Rising from the Last War p63
Returning Weapon
Prerequisites: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder's hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.“

So- yes. According to RAW.

Moreover, it's considered wielded by the hand(s) with which it was wielded at the start of the attack, until the attack fully resolves.

The ability to act and react with the kind of inhuman speed and momentum-shifting required to free up the hand for meaningful other actions before the thrown weapon lands and deals damage would actually be impressive enough that I could see that being a class feature or a feat.

I don't know about anybody else, but whenever I've been taught about throwing things, or bowling, or other activities where sending an item to a distant target area by hand, "follow-through" and "focus on your target to the end" is generally considered an important part of accuracy. Not because you magically control the ball or whatever after it leaves your hand, but because following through and maintaining focus ensures that you don't disrupt the motion before you let it go. The time until it "hits" is usually too small to do much else unless you were already prepped to do that "something else," in which case you weren't focused on propelling the item to its target.

I'm not going to say it's impossible to train to do something like that, but it seems the kind of thing that requires sufficient specialized training to qualify as a feature or a feat.

This is not, however, in the RAW, but a consideration of what the RAW are modeling.

In the RAW themselves, it is possible to interpret and rule the way I am, or the way ThorOdinson is, but I tend to find that ThorOdinson's interpretation leads to undesirable game-states antithetical to that which is being modeled by the RAW, while I find no particular problems arise from the way I interpret the RAW and rule that they work.

[ThorOdinson]

Not just wielded, but wielded by whatever number of hands it started in.

Even when the thrown weapon is striking the target and delivering damage and not in one hand?

[Valmark]

Even when the thrown weapon is striking the target and delivering damage and not in one hand?

Yes. Why are you asking the same thing five times in different ways?

[Mellack]

For mechanical rules purposes, yes. The game is not a simulator of reality in any way. Turns mechanically have one person run around and take their actions, then the next, down the turn order. It doesn't reflect the narrative that everyone is acting simultaneously. Same with attacks. Mechanically, the character is considered to still be wielding the weapon in whatever hands through the whole attack, regardless of whatever the narrative description is.

I think this has been made quite clear.

[ThorOdinson]

For mechanical rules purposes, yes. The game is not a simulator of reality in any way. Turns mechanically have one person run around and take their actions, then the next, down the turn order. It doesn't reflect the narrative that everyone is acting simultaneously. Same with attacks. Mechanically, the character is considered to still be wielding the weapon in whatever hands through the whole attack, regardless of whatever the narrative description is.

I think this has been made quite clear.

We were talking about semantics.

So in terms of semantics, a weapon that is thrown is considered "wielded" when it hits a target and delivers damage even when the weapon is not in one hand when the weapon hits the target and delivers damage , correct?

[Mellack]

We were talking about semantics.

So in terms of semantics, a weapon that is thrown is considered "wielded" when it hits a target and delivers damage even when the weapon is not in one hand, correct?

You will have to make that clear, because I do not see how you mean that semantically.

I was speaking as a game rules construct. If you meant something different, you should please make that clear.

[ThorOdinson]

You will have to make that clear, because I do not see how you mean that semantically.

I was speaking as a game rules construct. If you meant something different, you should please make that clear.

So you weren't talking about semantics at all. You were talking about game rules constructs, correct?

So if you were talking about game rules constructs then first why don't you quote the game rule constructs that support what you say?

[Segev]

So you weren't talking about semantics at all. You were talking about game rules constructs, correct?

So if you were talking about game rules constructs then first why don't you quote the game rule constructs that support what you say?

For the same reason you cannot find game rules that support your claim that it ceases to be wielded between the attack roll and the damage roll.

You're the one insisting that's the only way to read the RAW. We agree with you that it is a technically-valid way to read the RAW (even if it is semantically and colloquially nonsensical and leads to undesirable game-states to do so). You're the one insisting that there is no other way to interpret the RAW.

Colloquially, it is silly to say, "The ninja stopped wielding the shuriken in order to throw it at the samurai."

[Mellack]

It has been done...repeatedly. I already tire of this. Good luck.

[Valmark]

So you weren't talking about semantics at all. You were talking about game rules constructs, correct?

So if you were talking about game rules constructs then first why don't you quote the game rule constructs that support what you say?

But that was already done by Zhorn? And JNA quoted it again later?

[ThorOdinson]

It has been done...repeatedly. I already tire of this. Good luck.

Let the record indicate that you did not present a quotation of the rules to support your claim about rule game constructs.

[ThorOdinson]

But that was already done by Zhorn? And JNA quoted it again later?

Nope. No one has ever quoted any rule to support their claims about game rule constructs.

Feel free to open up the PHB and do so now.